the world." The whole Sermon is written upon a quarter of a sheet of paper, folded together, with the alternate pages originally blank, but there are a few lines upon each of them. The pages are six inches and three quarters long, and four inches wide, and each of them contain one hundred and fourteen lines. The first blank page has upon it fifteen lines, some intended addition to the second page; and the conclusion of the DisCourse appears in five lines on the second blank page, with the notice before-mentioned at the bottom of it. I have more than once tried to copy the whole Sermon, in order to see how much paper it would cover in a common hand; but my tired eyes have soon put an end to the attempt. Spaces of near half an inch in length seem to divide the sentences. I had once in my possession a great number of Sermons written in the same mauner. If I say more than a hundred, I am sure I speak within compass; nor do I think I should exceed the truth, if I doubled that number. And this circumstance confirms the idea, that they were written to be used in the Pulpit, and for his own use only, as no other eyes but those of the Writer could receive any assistance from them. According to Neal, the Bishop was born at Southampton in the year 1599. He was therefore in his 37th year when he wrote this Sermon. And he died in the year 1676, at which great age, notwithstanding these severe exercises of his eyes in his younger days, it does not appear but that he retained his eye-sight to the day of his death. Yours, &c.. T. R.

Yo

Mr. URBAN, April 6. YOUR different Correspondents, in the accounts given in the Obituarics vol. LXXVII. pp. 790, 885, of the Duchess of Gloucester, have quite mistaken every circumstance. Sir Edward Walpole lived at Frogmore, in a large house, now pulled down and laid into her Majesty's garden. Her mother's name was not Paxton, but Cleinents: she and her sister were milleners at Bath; and after her death (which was before any of her children married) the sister lived with Sir Ed ward at Luxborough-house. By this lady he had Laura, married to Dr. Keppel; another married to Lord Huntingtower, afterward Earl Dysart;

a son, Horatio, who died at twenty; and, Maria, married to Earl Waldegrave, and afterwards to the Duke of Gloucester. It is, perhaps, not generally known how they were first introduced to the world. Sir Robert Rich (whose lady was daughter to Lord Mahon, killed in the duel for Mrs. Bracegirdle) lived at Windsor, in the house afterwards purchased by Dr. Heberden: she visited the old Lady. Albemarle, mother to him who was the friend of William Duke of Cumberland, and the Bishop of Exeter, and also of the lovely Marchioness of Tavistock, then Lady Elizabeth Keppel; Miss Laura Walpole married Dr. Keppel, at that time only one of the Prebendaries, and then Lady Rich present, ed the two other sisters at Court. The Writer of this article lived at Sunning Hill, a child, when they all married; but can never erase from memory what lovely women the Keppels and the Walpoles were. Lady Albemarle had another daughter, Lady Caroline, married to Dr. Adair, not quite with the consent of her brother, my Lord. The Marquis of Tavistock applied to Lady Albemarle for her consent to address Lady Elizabeth; the old Lady, with dignity, said she would mention it. The lovely girl was summoned into her closet, and the offer proposed without mentioning names; she begged to remain single. On the Mother's remonstrating, and declaring it a splendid alliance, she was still the same; at last, when, rather irritated by her refusal to marry, she declared the person who solicited her hand, she fainted at her Mother's feet!-it was the man to whom she had already given her heart, but did not aspire to. "They were the happiest pair of human kind!"

Mrs. Hardinge, mentioned in your Obituary, p. 480, was certainly the daughter of Sir Charles Pratt by his second wife. Her Husband would be better remembered as Clerk to the House of Commons, where he may be found in any old Court Calendar.

A VERY OLD FEMALE SUBSCRIBER.

Mr. URBAN, Paddington, Feb. 21. THE primary objects of a Period

ical Miscellany are, to promote the ends of Literature and Science, provoke enquiry, excite discussion, and disseminate useful truths. When any of these are violated or counteracted,

either by insidious imposition, or careless misrepresentation, it is a duty that some person either owes to himself or to the Publick to correct such fallacy. In the pages of your useful Magazine this has frequently occurred: and among all your Correspondents, I believe, there is no one who has been so often admonished as "An Architect,” and J. C." The style and sentiments of the different papers with these signatures prove them to be the effusions of one head; and it is much to be regretted that this is so often perverted by chimerical notions and nugatory sentiments. His principle seems good; but surely it is neither consistent with morality, true taste, or science, to attack and abuse all persons who differ from him a little in opinion,or who, from very obvious reasons, neglect to imitate old buildings in modern edifices. Nor is he likely to check the progress of what he terms "innovation" by reprobating every Architect who introduces a novelty. If all Artists were bound to imitate the productions of the faultless Antients, we should be reduced to a sadly degraded state. The qualities of Genius, Taste, and Talent, would be useless; and the thinking faculties would become torpid. The system of rigidly copying the Antients is so extremely absurd, that we can scarcely condescend to reason upon it.

The purport of the present Letter is, however, not general, for it is meant to correct a very erroneous statement which appeared in your last Supplement, signed J. C. The Writer asserts, that the " Abbey work-people"

at Westminster have "thrown out a strong hint" (which has hit the pericranium of J. C.) "that there has lately been found a complete series of ALL the WORKING DRAWINGS,' made in the reigns of Henry VII. and VIII. for the entire building of this Chapel" (Henry the Seventh's).

Being particularly partial to the antient edifices of England, and having for some years past made many researches respecting documents, draw ings, and the history of "English Architecture," you may readily imagine that such a statement as the above would excite my curiosity in no common degree. Indeed, I was induced to make very strict and particular enquiry on this interesting subject; the result of which I shall lay before your

Readers, to gratify those who are inquisitive on the subject, and to furnish J. C. with more accurate information than he appears to possess, or, at least, than what he has chosen to state to the Publick. I cannot for a moment suppose that he would wil-. fully misrepresent facts, or that he can have any interested motives in deceiving the Readers of your Miscellany.

At Westminster Abbey Church, and after much enquiry of the mason, sextons, " work-people," &c. I learned that a Mr. Carter, who has published a volume of Etchings on "Antient Architecture," had been a long time employed in making sketches of Henry the Seventh's Chapel: that a Mr. Britton, author of "The Architectural Antiquities of Great Britain," had also devoted much time lately to make measurements, and write an account of the same building, and had employed four Artists to make various drawings of it; that this Mr. Britton had brought a large geometrical drawing of the East end of the Chapel, which appeared to be executed with extraordinary care and fidelity; and that this drawing is the property of Mrs. King, widow of the late Edward King, esq. It further appeared from my enquiry, that Mr. Britton had taken a volume of very old drawings to the Chapel; and that one of these drawings was a geometrical view of the great Western Window, and another represented the groining of a compartment in one of the Ailes. These drawings I supposed were the ones referred to by J. C.; in consequence of which, I made free to call on Mr. Britton, who readily shewed me several very beautiful drawings, made for his own work, but could not favour me with a view of those I so much desired to see. He apprised me, that the book of antient drawings, with explanatory letters, were sent to the Society of Antiquaries, to be exhibited on their next night of meeting. I accordingly attended, and examined them; but was much surprised to find that the Secretary withheld the descriptive letters. Thus, though the drawings are certainly the most curious and most antient that have hitherto been discovered, they were scarcely noticed by any of the Members. They have since become the property of a respectable bookseller in Holborn,

who